Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
June 24, 2022
FILE NO.:
WR 179942
Assessed Person(s):
Drewlo Holdings Inc.
Appellant(s):
Drewlo Holdings Inc.
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 23
Respondent(s):
City of London
Property Location(s):
See Schedule A
Municipality(ies):
City of London
Roll Number(s):
See Schedule A
Appeal Number(s):
See Schedule A and 3422301
Taxation Year(s):
2019
Hearing Event No.:
740264
Legislative Authority:
Section 33 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 and s. 357 (7) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Drewlo Holdings Inc.
Joe Jebreen and Scott McAnsh
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Jennifer Barlow
City of London
Brian Shimla*
HEARD:
April 7, 2021 by video conference
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Jennifer Griffith, Member Dirk VanderBent, Vice-Chair
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Drewlo Holdings Inc. (“the Appellant”) was the owner of the property located at 750 Capulet Lane, London (the “Subject Property”) in the 2018 and 2019 taxation years and has filed an appeal with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) pursuant to s. 40(1) of the Assessment Act, S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) from an assessment made under s. 33 of the Act for the 2019 taxation year, on the ground that the current value of the Subject Property is incorrect.
2In order to understand the issue that the Appellant has raised in this in appeal proceeding, it is necessary to describe the development history of the Subject Property.
3The Subject Property was a vacant property on which the Appellant decided to build three multi-residential apartment towers. Construction appears to have been completed in mid-2017, although the vast majority of the residential units remained vacant until 2018. For two of these three towers, the Appellant decided to convert the apartments to condominium units, pursuant to the provisions of the Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 19 (“Condominium Act”). Pursuant to s. 2 of the Condominium Act, these condominium units came into existence on December 6, 2018, when the Appellant registered a declaration and description for a freehold condominium corporation with the land registry office. This process is commonly described as registering a condominium plan.
4The effect of the registration legally removed the two towers, as well as the portion of the Subject Property on which they were situated, from the original “parent” Subject Property, and created new condominium units. The Appellant continued to be the owner of both the condominium units and the third multi-residential tower on the remaining land in the original Subject Property. A year later, the Appellant converted the third tower to condominium units, registering the declaration and description on December 13, 2019, (but this is not relevant to the issue raised in this appeal).
5To further understand the nature of the issue in this appeal proceeding, it is necessary to explain how the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) initially assessed the current value of the original parent Subject Property, and the subsequent changes MPAC made to this assessment for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.
6The Board begins by noting that, pursuant to s. 36 of the Act, MPAC is required to annually report all the information listed in s.14 of the Act to the municipality for the upcoming taxation year. This information is then used by the municipality to calculate and levy municipal property taxes on the property owner. Under the Act, this is defined as the return of the Assessment Roll. Section 36 of the Act also specifies that MPAC must return the Assessment Roll no later than the second Tuesday of December in the calendar year preceding the taxation year.
7Consequently, for the 2019 taxation year, the date for the return of the Assessment Roll is December 11, 2018, which was just five days after the condominium plans were registered. MPAC is required to report the correct information when it returns the Assessment Roll. However, in this case, there was insufficient time for MPAC to amend the Assessment Roll it had prepared for the 2019 taxation year to reflect the change to the Subject Property. In this regard, it must also be noted that, not only was MPAC required to first confirm that the condominium registration was valid, and then to update the Assessment Roll to add the new condominium properties, but, as these condominium properties had not previously existed, it was also necessary that MPAC assess the current value of these condominium units. This entire process could not be completed within 5 days.
8The following is a chronology of the actions MPAC then took to address the changes related to the addition of the towers to the land, and the subsequent conversion to condominium units:
a. On the Assessment Roll for the 2018 taxation year (returned in December 2017), MPAC reported that the Subject Property was vacant land (classified as vacant multi-residential), with a current value of $2,602,000, even though the complete towers were present on the land.
b. On the Assessment Roll returned for the 2019 taxation year (returned on December 11, 2018), MPAC again reported the Subject Property was vacant land (classified as vacant multi-residential), with a current value of $2,602,000. (Therefore, MPAC did not report either the addition of the multi-residential towers or the conversion of the two towers to condominium units.)
c. In January 2019, MPAC conducted an assessment of the current value of the Subject Property, concluding that the total value of the Subject Property (land and the three towers) was $68,410,000.
d. In May 2019, MPAC, pursuant to s. 33 of the Act, then amended the Assessment Rolls for both the 2018 and 2019 taxation years, to change the current value of the original Subject Property to $68,410,000.
e. On September 24, 2019, MPAC, pursuant to s. 32(1.1) of the Act, then issued a correction to the Assessment Roll for the 2019 taxation year setting the current value of the Subject Property to zero. However, the explanation on the Amended Property Assessment Notice sent by MPAC to the Appellant states: “A change in the legal description of your property has resulted in a change to the roll number. This change is effective for taxation beginning January 1, 2019.”
f. Also, on September 24, 2019, MPAC, pursuant to s. 33 of the Act, amended the Assessment Roll for the 2019 taxation year, to add the condominium properties to the Assessment Roll, and showing the current value assessed for these properties. The total current value of these properties was $62,527,000. MPAC also amended the Assessment Roll to show a new assessment roll number for the remaining third multi-residential tower, and to show the total current value of this property as $21,377,5005.
9For ease of reference, the Board refers to condominium properties and the “new” third multi-residential tower property as the “New Properties”.
10From a financial perspective, the total current value of the Subject Property with the three multi-residential towers, before the condominium conversion was $68,410,000. The total current value of the New Properties is $83,904,500 ($62,527,000 for the condominiums plus $21,377,500 of the “new” third multi-residential tower property). The Appellant emphasizes that the total current value of the New Properties is approximately $15.5 million higher than the Subject Property with the three multi-residential towers. The Appellant does not dispute any of these current values.
11Having explained this background information, the Board can now describe the issue raised in this appeal. The Appellant submits that MPAC, having made the May 2019 s. 33 omitted assessment of the current value of the “land” for the 2019 taxation year (which includes the three towers), was not permitted to make the second s. 33 omitted assessment in September 2019. In overview, the Appellant’s rationale for its submission is as follows. The Appellant states that s. 33 only allows MPAC to amend the Assessment Roll if there is an omission on the Assessment Roll. There was an omission on the Assessment Roll for the 2019 taxation year, so MPAC had the authority to issue the May 2019 omitted assessment. Having done so, and even though this s. 33 assessment failed to address the conversion of a portion of the Subject Properties to condominiums, there was no omission on the Assessment Roll because the “land”, as this term is used in the Act, had been assessed. Consequently, the Appellant maintains that MPAC did not have the authority to issue the s. 33 omitted assessment in September 2019.
12MPAC does not agree. The City of London has not participated in this proceeding.
13If the Appellant is correct, then the correct current value of the land in question for the 2019 taxation year would be $68,410,000.
RESULT
14The current values of the New Properties for the 2019 taxation year, as reported by MPAC in its omitted assessments made in September 2019, are correct. The Appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
ISSUES FOR THE HEARING
15The issue to be determined in this proceeding only become evident after reviewing and considering the relevant legislation and prior Court decisions cited by the parties, which is explained in the Board’s analysis and findings below.
16The issue on this appeal is whether MPAC had the authority to issue the September 2019 omitted assessments under s. 33 of the Act, which requires that “land liable to assessment has been in whole or in part omitted from the tax roll”. In order to answer that question, the Board must determine whether the registration of the condominium plan created new “land” that had not previously been assessed.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
17There are two preliminary matters to be addressed. First s. 40(26) of the Act deems that the Appellant shall have brought the same appeal filed for 2019 taxation year, for the subsequent taxation years in the assessment cycle. In the circumstances of this case, the Appellant has confirmed that it requires a determination of the current value for only the 2019 taxation year and, consequently, the Appellant, at this hearing confirmed that it withdrew the deemed appeals for these subsequent taxation years.
18Second, the Appellant has also filed an appeal (appeal #: 3422301) pursuant to s. 357 (7) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 ("the Municipal Act") (“Appellant’s Municipal Act Appeal”), which, by an earlier order of the Board, has been stayed pending the completion of the disposition of the Appellant’s appeals of the s. 33 assessments. As this Decision disposes of the s. 33 appeals, the Appellant is directed, within 30 days of the issuance of this Decision, to either file a notice of withdrawal, if the Appellant does not wish to further proceed with its Municipal Act Appeal or submit an Expedited Board Direction Form to the Board requesting any required amendments to the due dates in the Schedule of Events currently assigned for this appeal proceeding. As MPAC is not a party to the Appellant’s Municipal Act Appeal, MPAC must similarly submit an Expedited Board request within 30 days of the issuance of this Decision, if MPAC wishes to be added as a party to that appeal proceeding.
ANALYSIS and findings
Introduction
19The Board provides the parties’ submissions in its analysis below. The Appellant’s submissions raise two questions which the Board will address in turn:
What is the scope of s. 33 of the Act?
Did the registration of the condominium plan create new lands that were omitted from the Assessment Roll in 2019?
What is the scope of s. 33 of the Act?
20Section 33 of the Act states:
Change re land omitted from tax roll
33 (1) The following rules apply if land liable to assessment has been in whole or in part omitted from the tax roll for the current year or for all or part of either or both of the last two preceding years, and no taxes have been levied for the assessment omitted:
- The assessment corporation shall make any assessment necessary to correct the omission.
21The Appellant relies on a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in East of Bay ( 2003 ) Development Corp v Toronto (City), [2010] OJ No 2468, 2010 ONSC 3337, 2010 CarswellOnt 3880, 190 ACWS (3d) 20 (“East of Bay”). In this case, the property owner registered a condominium plan shortly before the date for the return of the Assessment Roll for the following taxation year. As MPAC requires time in order to assess the current value of new condominium units, it had adopted a policy of issuing a s. 33 omitted assessment which (i) updated the Assessment Roll to reflect the new condominium units (i.e. properties), and (ii) reported a current value for each unit that only reflected the land value allocated to the unit, thereby omitting the building value to be attributed to each unit. Then, at a later date, MPAC would issue a further s. 33 omitted assessments to change the current values reported on the Assessment Roll to include the building value of each unit.
22In East of Bay, the property owner who registered the condominium plan challenged MPAC's practice submitting that MPAC had reported a current value for each condominium unit which MPAC knew was incorrect. Apart from this, the property owner’s main argument was that, as MPAC had already amended the Assessment Roll to reflect the condominium units and reported a current value for these properties, there no longer was any omission on the Assessment Roll. Consequently, MPAC had no authority to issue a second s. 33 omitted assessment to correct the current value of each of the condominium units. The Appellant emphasized that the wording of s.33 states that an omitted assessment can only be issued “if land liable to assessment has been in whole or in part omitted from the tax roll…” [emphasis added].
23The Court agreed with the property owner, holding that an “omission” under s. 33 only extended to “correcting or making right an omission that was inadvertently excluded through oversight or negligence”. The Court found, therefore, that MPAC had no authority to issue the s. 33 omitted assessment because MPAC's decision to exclude the building value was intentional not inadvertent (see paragraph 19).
24MPAC then appealed to the Divisional Court which issued a decision in East of Bay ( 2003 ) Development Corp v Municipal Property Assessment Corp, [2011] OJ No 271, 2011 ONSC 242, 79 MPLR (4th) 303, 2011 CarswellOnt 312 At paragraphs 5 and 6 the Court stated:
5In our view, it is not necessary to address the broader issue of whether deliberate omissions are captured under s. 33(1) on the particular facts of this case. Simply put, no land “liable to assessment … in whole or in part”, has been omitted in the 293 separate Notices of Assessment sent out on or about October 31, 2006.
6Those Notices did not properly assess the current value of the individual apartment units. However, those Notices did identify every part of the land “liable to assessment”. Separate roll numbers were assigned to each dwelling unit in the building, rather than continuing the prior assessment roll number and legal description for the entirety of the land.
25The Board observes that the effect of the Divisional Court ruling was to uphold that if the land has been correctly identified on the Assessment Roll as condominium units, and a current value has been reported for each of these units, then a s. 33 omitted assessment cannot be issued on a subsequent date, because, at that time, there is no longer is an omission on the Assessment Roll, even if the reported current value is incorrect.
26As noted above, the Divisional Court found that, in light of the above finding, it was unnecessary to consider whether deliberate omissions are captured by s. 33. Consequently, this Divisional Court ruling indicates that the ruling by the Superior Court on this point is obiter dicta, i.e, it is a finding which was not required in order to decide the case at hand, and, therefore, it is not a binding ruling that must be applied by the Board in future cases.
27Furthermore, in Bona Building & Management Company Limited v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2015 ONSC 7824, the Superior Court of Justice addressed the Superior Court decision in East of Bay stating, at paragraph 31:
31The conclusions of the court in East of Bay are specific to the facts of that case. I do not accept that East of Bay does or intends to impose an obligation upon MPAC to explain how or why a property was omitted from the tax rolls.
28Turning to the facts of this case, the Board observes that the factual circumstances in this case are not the same as the circumstances in East of Bay. In East of Bay, MPAC's first s. 33 omitted assessment added the new condominium units to the Assessment Roll together with a reported current value for each unit. In this case, MPAC's first s. 33 omitted assessment did not add the new condominium units to the Assessment Roll. Instead, the s. 33 omitted assessment only changed the reported current value of the Subject Property based on the construction of the new buildings. For this reason, the Board finds that the factual circumstances in the case at hand are different from the factual circumstances before the Court in East of Bay. Therefore, East of Bay must be distinguished from the case at hand.
29However, the Board must follow Divisional Court ruling respecting the scope of the application of s. 33, i.e. if there is no omission on the Assessment Roll, because the Assessment Roll has been corrected earlier, then a further omitted assessment cannot be issued to correct the current value. Therefore, it remains an open question whether, in the circumstances of this case, the application of this ruling will produce the same result as in East of Bay, i.e. whether MPAC had the authority to issue the second s. 33 omitted assessments in September, 2019.
30The Appellant submits that the finding in East of Bay applies, because the May 2019 s. 33 assessment did identify every part of the land “liable to assessment”. Therefore, once the May 2019 assessment was issued, there was no further omission to be corrected for the 2019 taxation year. For this reason, the Appellant argues that s. 33 does not provide MPAC with the authority to issue the second September 2019 s. 33 assessments in respect of this land.
31The Appellant also cites the decision of the Ontario Divisional Court in Magee v Municipal Property Assessment Corp, [2010] OJ No 5619, 2010 ONSC 6498, 79 MPLR (4th) 265, 2010 CarswellOnt 9138 (“Magee”). In that case, four rural properties had been improved by building a golf course. MPAC could have issued an assessment under s. 34 of the Act which allows MPAC to issue a supplementary assessment to reflect the new improvements that are added to a property. Instead, MPAC issued a s. 33 omitted assessment. The property owners maintained that s. 33 only applied to a change in the description of the property. They argued that, if MPAC wished to assess the improvements to the land without changing the properties’ description, the appropriate section to use was s. 34 of the Act. In addressing the argument, at paragraph 9, the Court held:
With respect to the appellant's submission that the focus of s.33 is to capture "land" that was omitted from the description in the assessment or tax roll, we first note that this interpretation is not borne out by the actual wording of s.33(1). Section 33(1) refers to "land" that is liable to assessment that has been in whole or in part omitted from the tax roll. It does not refer to "land" whose description has been omitted from the description of the property in the assessment or tax roll. [emphasis added]
32The Appellant submits that, in Magee, the Court was clear that the question is if land is omitted, not if a legal description in omitted. In this case, the Appellant first emphasizes that entire Subject Property (land and buildings) were included in MPAC’s May 2019 assessment. The Appellant submits that only the legal description of the land, as set out in the condominium plan, was omitted, asserting that the legal description of the land is not the land. Therefore, Appellant maintains that the land, itself, must be omitted form the tax roll for subsection 33(1) to have any application, arguing that there was no land omitted here.
33In response, MPAC maintains that the Assessment Roll did not include the condominium units or the fact that the registration of the condominium corporation replaced the “parent” Subject Property with new “lands” that had not been previously assessed. MPAC submits that, as the omitted assessment issued in May 2019 did not address these omissions, MPAC had the authority to issue the second s. 33 omitted assessments in respect of the New Properties. In this regard, MPAC explains that, in order to correct the 2019 Assessment Roll MPAC had to issue the s. 32(1.1) assessment to remove the original Subject Property from the Assessment Roll, and then issue the s. 33 omitted assessments to add the New Properties and their current values to the Assessment Roll.
34In support of its position described above, MPAC cites a decision of the Divisional Court in 1609830 Ontario Limited v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 9, 2008 CanLII 47726 (ON SCDC) (“Idomo”). The property owner, Idomo, obtained a legal severance of a property (“the original property”), dividing it into two new properties, retaining one of the new properties and selling the other to a new owner, Liberty. MPAC had not issued an omitted s. 33 assessment to correct the assessment roll to reflect the two new properties. Therefore, Idomo continued to be assessed for taxes on both properties. The municipality noticed the error and filed an appeal with the Board to correct the error. At the original Board hearing, the Board exercised its appeal jurisdiction under s. 44(1) of the Act to correct the Assessment Roll to reflect the new properties, but declined to make any order against Liberty, who had not been served with the municipality’s appeal. In particular, the Board noted that it had no evidence on which it could determine the current value of Liberty’s property. On appeal, the Divisional Court found, at paragraph 20:
20The Board correctly exercised its discretion pursuant to s. 44(1) of the Assessment Act to rectify the error on the assessment roll so that the correct legal description and acreage was reflected in the remaining property owned by Idomo. Section 33 of the Assessment Act is then engaged obliging the assessor to rectify the omission and to include the Property purchased by Liberty on the assessment roll.
In summary, as the Board’s order added the new properties to the Assessment Roll, MPAC was then obligated to subsequently conduct a s. 33 omitted assessment to report the current values of these new properties on the Assessment Roll.
35The Board finds that Idomo clearly confirms that, in the circumstances of this case, MPAC has the jurisdiction to correct the legal description of the property resulting from a condominium registration, and then issue a s. 33 omitted assessment to add the new lands and their current values to the assessment roll. However, the factual circumstance in Idomo, is different from the factual circumstance in this case. In Idomo, MPAC did not issue two s. 33 omitted assessments to correct the land severance. Therefore, the Court was not required to consider the Appellant’s argument, in this case, that only the legal description of the land, as set out in the condominium plan, was omitted from the Assessment Roll. For this reason, the Board finds that Idomo is not determinative of the issue which the Appellant has raised in this case.
36Consequently, the relevant question, which is determinative of the dispute in this proceeding, remains whether the registration of the condominium plan created new lands to be added to the Assessment Roll? If no new lands were created, then there would, in effect, be no omission on the Assessment Roll after the May 2019 s. 33 omitted assessment was issued, and, therefore, MPAC would not have the authority to subsequently issue the September 2019 s. 33 omitted assessments.
Did the registration of the condominium plan create new lands that were omitted from the Assessment Roll in 2019?
37In addressing this question, the Board first observes it must interpret several sections of the Act. In this regard, the Board notes the statement made by the Divisional Court in Idomo, at paragraph 14: “The individual sections of the Assessment Act are inter-dependant and must be read in [the] context and purpose of [the] entire Act, which is to regulate the orderly and fair collection of public taxes based upon an accurate assessment roll.” [emphasis added]
38Section 1 of the Act, which states:
“land”, “real property” and “real estate” include,
(a) land covered with water,
(b) all trees and underwood growing upon land,
(c) all mines, minerals, gas, oil, salt quarries and fossils in and under land,
(d) all buildings, or any part of any building, and all structures, machinery and fixtures erected or placed upon, in, over, under or affixed to land,
(e) all structures and fixtures erected or placed upon, in, over, under or affixed to a highway, lane or other public communication or water, but not the rolling stock of a transportation system;
This definition clearly indicates that, for the purpose of the Act, “land”, “real property” and “real estate” are interchangeable. The Board also notes that several sections of the Act refer to the term “property”, which is not defined in the Act. However, based on the context in which the term “property” is used in these sections, “property” clearly refers to real property.
39Section 3 of the Act states:
Property assessable and taxable, exemptions
3 (1) All real property in Ontario is liable to assessment and taxation, subject to the following exemptions from taxation: . . .
Therefore, all land/real property/real estate/property in Ontario is liable to assessment. This includes all buildings situated on a property.
40Regarding the meaning of “liable for assessment”, s. 17(1) of the Act states:
Land assessed against owner
17 (1) Subject to section 18, land shall be assessed against the owner.
Therefore, for purposes of the Act, land/real property/real estate/property is land to which there is a right of ownership.
41Section 14 of the Act defines the Assessment Roll and the information to be contained in it. It states:
Assessment roll Contents
14 (1) The assessment corporation shall prepare an assessment roll for each municipality, for each locality and for non-municipal territory and the assessment roll shall contain the following information as well as the information required under subsections (1.1) and (1.2):
The name and surnames, in full, if they can be ascertained, of all persons who are liable to assessment in the municipality or in the non-municipal territory, as the case may be.
The amount assessable against each person who is liable to assessment, opposite the person’s name.
A description of each property sufficient to identify it.
The number of acres, or other measures showing the extent of the land.
The current value of the land.
The value of the land liable to taxation.
The value of land exempt from taxation.
The classification of the land.
Such other information as may be prescribed by the Minister.
[emphasis added]
The Board notes that when considered in conjunction with s. 17 of the Act, s. 14(1)(2) refers to the person who holds the right of ownership to the land/real property/real estate/property. The Board also notes and emphasizes that this category of information is separate and distinct from the ‘description of the property sufficient to identify it’, because the latter description is listed as separate item in s. 14(1)(3). The Board observes that, had the Legislature considered the right of ownership to be merely part of a ‘property’s description sufficient to identify it’, then it would be unnecessary to include s. 14(1)(2) as separate category of information.
42In light of the above analysis, the inevitable conclusion is that “land”, which is to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, is land/real property/real estate/property to which a right of ownership applies, because liability for assessment depends on such ownership. As land is to be assessed against the owner, where land is severed as between more than one owner, the combination of s. 17(1) and s. 14(1)2 of the Act requires that the newly severed parcels be assessed separately against each owner.
43The final question, therefore, is whether the registration of a declaration and description for a freehold condominium corporation with the land registry office, creates a right of ownership that is different and distinct from the right to ownership of the “parent” Subject Property. If not, then there may be merit in the Appellant’s argument that registration of a condominium plan only changes the legal description of the land, not the land liable to assessment.
44In this regard, the Board notes that s. 10 and s. 11 of the Condominium Act state:
PART III
OWNERSHIP
Type of property
10 Units and common elements are real property for all purposes. 1998, c. 19, s. 10.
Ownership of property
11 (1) Subject to this Act, the declaration, the by-laws and the rules, each owner is entitled to exclusive ownership and use of the owner’s unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 11 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 13 (1).
Same, common elements
(2) The owners are tenants in common of the common elements and an undivided interest in the common elements is appurtenant to each owner’s unit.
Assessment
15 (1) Each unit, together with its appurtenant common interest, constitutes a parcel for the purpose of municipal assessment and taxation.
These provisions make it clear that: (i) condominium units are real property, (therefore qualifying as land/real property/real estate/property under the Act); (ii) new rights of ownership are created and apply to each unit once a declaration and description for a freehold condominium corporation is registered with the land registry office; and (iii) s. 15 of the Condominium Act expressly states each unit is a separate parcel for the purpose of municipal assessment and taxation.
45Based on the above analysis, the Board does not accept the Appellant’s submission that, for purposes of the Act, the registration of the condominium plan only constitutes a change in the legal description of the Subject Property. Clearly, new “lands” were created, which were omitted on the Assessment Roll for the 2019 taxation year. Therefore, s. 33 of the Act clearly obligated MPAC to make the further September 2019 assessments to correct the omissions of the condominium units.
46Regarding “new” third multi-residential tower property, the registration of the condominium plan has resulted in a severance of the Subject Property. The decision in Idomo clearly finds that a severance of a property creates new lands which, in turn, creates an omission on the Assessment Roll. Therefore, MPAC was similarly obligated to make the further September 2019 assessment to correct the omission respecting this property.
47In conclusion, the Board finds the lands and current values reported in the s. 33 omitted assessments made by MPAC in October 2019 are the correct lands and current values to reported on the Assessment Roll for the 2019 taxation year.
ORDER
48The lands and current values reported in the s. 33 omitted assessments made by MPAC in October 2019 are the correct lands and current values to be reported on the Assessment Roll for the 2019 taxation year.
49As this Decision disposes of the s. 33 appeals, the Appellant is directed, within 30 days of the issuance of this Decision, to either file a notice of withdrawal of the Appellant’s Municipal Act Appeal, if the Appellant does not wish to further proceed with this appeal or submit an Expedited Board Request to the Board requesting any required amendments to the due dates in the Schedule of Events currently assigned for this appeal proceeding. As MPAC is not a party to the Appellant’s Municipal Act Appeal, MPAC must similarly submit an Expedited Board request within 30 days of the issuance of this Decision, if MPAC wishes to be added as a party to this appeal proceeding.
"Dirk VanderBent"
DIRK VANDERBENT
VICE-CHAIR
"Jennifer Griffith"
JENNIFER GRIFFITH
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb
Schedule A
Schedule A Continued
Schedule A Continued
Schedule A Continued
Schedule A Continued
Schedule A Continued
Schedule A Continued
Schedule A Continued
Schedule A Continued
Schedule A Continued
Schedule A Continued
Schedule A Continued
Schedule A Continued
Schedule A Continued
Schedule A Continued
Schedule A Continued
Schedule A Continued
Schedule A Continued
Schedule A Continued
Schedule A Continued
Schedule A Continued
Schedule A Continued